Like Tree8Likes
  • 1 Post By INFOMAN
  • 2 Post By l.f.theria
  • 2 Post By l.f.theria
  • 1 Post By l.f.theria

Thread: THE ENERGY NON-CRISIS, WE HAVE PLENTY OF OIL, IT'S ABIOTIC

  1. #1

    INFOMAN's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    515
    Liked
    53 times

    THE ENERGY NON-CRISIS, WE HAVE PLENTY OF OIL, IT'S ABIOTIC

    7redorbs likes this.

  2. #2
    Show me some evidence!
    l.f.theria's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mesa Arizona USA
    Posts
    218
    Liked
    74 times
    Images
    14
    1. Lindsey Williams is not a scientist; he's a Baptist minister.

    2. His starting his rant by saying that the Bad Guys are controlling everything, including our toothbrushes, is not the best way to make someone believe that this guy is serious.

    3. The belief in "abiotic oil" is based on some pretty shaky suppositions, indeed; primarily that we have found evidence of hydrocarbons on some jovian moons; but that we have absolutely no idea what the mechanism was, so we can't very well say that it is similar to anything here on Earth. The Russian scientists who claim that it is feasible have no mathematics to back their assertion, and no actual evidence of oil-well recharging through abiotic production.

    4. Even if there were an abiotic generation process and it were proved, it's not going to do us much good, since whatever recharging there is in existing dry wells is very, very slow. My belief (and this is shared by most folks) is the recharge of existing oil wells which have "gone dry" is simply that they haven't gone completely dry; it's just that their production slowed down to the point where it wasn't feasible to pump them any more, After a couple of years of non-use, some oil has seeped though the shale and the well-bore is full again -- but only for a little bit, until it's pumped out.

    5. Finally, even if there were abiotic oil and we could get it to flow on a large-scale basis, what would that mean in the long run?
    * Oil pollutes when we pump it out of the ground -- and especially out of sub sea wells (think of the damage to the Arctic tundra when the Prudhomme Bay pipeline failed or the recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico);

    * It pollutes when it is transported by tanker (remember the "Exxon Valdez" or the "Prestige"?);

    * It pollutes when we burn it, in addition to pumping literally megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly, probably exacerbating climate change; and finally,

    * Unless we can get all of this supposedly abiotic oil from here in the United States or the North Sea, we in the West will be held economic hostage to a bunch of people who don't like us very much, and our balance of trade will take it in the shorts, quite likely leading us to bankruptcy and -- even worse -- keeping my country involved in a crazy foreign policy featuring imperialist military adventures around the globe.
    A.G.Frog and Carel like this.

  3. #3
    co-founder
    7redorbs's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,205
    Liked
    409 times
    Images
    867
    ScienceDaily (Nov. 6, 2009) — Scientists in Washington, D.C. are reporting laboratory evidence supporting the possibility that some of Earth's oil and natural gas may have formed in a way much different than the traditional process described in science textbooks.

    Abiotic Synthesis Of Methane: New Evidence Supports 19th-Century Idea On Formation Of Oil And Gas

    It may be the minister is a bad source, an intentional bad source. Some literary figures are paid to make particular statements , by association, to discredit a truth.

    Alex jones is a scary example of this. In the example that bohemian grove and the `satanic rituals` that go on there, are actually based in occultism/celtic and religious and pagan/celtic rights.

    There is no confusion. People muddy it with their 'opinions' .

    The question though is, is sciencedaily and the Washington DC source trusted, and if so, can we concentrate on that instead of the minister?

    As it is the science that will free us, not the religious minister Theria! (That is if there is any science!). It sounds 'too good to be true', but lets no just accept the source as muddied.

    Lets check that the source wasnt intentionally asked by the oil industry to do this. (Or using genuine scientific research to further the religious agenda) etc...

    Hope this makes some sense, I know I can be a little recondite.

    Best,
    A

  4. #4
    Show me some evidence!
    l.f.theria's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mesa Arizona USA
    Posts
    218
    Liked
    74 times
    Images
    14
    No argument there, Seven! But the possible synthesis of methane, as I mentioned in my post above, is not the same as abiotic petroleum (although it could be an alternative fuel source).

    My guess is that, in a pressure/heat regime extreme enough to cause abiotic methanogenesis, we're talking about asthenospheric depths and temperatures -- say, fifty to a hundred km down. That'd be a pretty deep well.

  5. #5
    Threadstarter

    INFOMAN's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    515
    Liked
    53 times
    OH, SO THERE REALLY IS A BIG MAN WITH A BANJO, I WAS WONDERING WHAT THAT REPLY WAS ABOUT.

    If you know more about Lindsey Williams and his appearances on infowars you would know that he was the preacher on the Alaskan pipeline when they were building it, and when they found that light sweet crude (200 years worth) that they told him not to tell anyone, and they tested it and capped it. At the same time the gub'ment made an agreement with the saudi's to buy all nearly all the U.S. needs for oil for 50 years with the agreement that they would buy our T bills to pay America's debt. So with the coming collapse of the dollar next year their intention is to double cross the saudi's and the t bills will be worthless. After this Lindsey Williams wrote the book The Energy non-crisis and the globalists foundout about they fired ken from from Atlantic Richfield oil.

    Gas Price Manipulation And Gull Island Oil

    Skousen: Gas Price Manipulation

    And this is bizarre that I just found, somewhat off topic, but interesting anyway.
    EVENTS IN TIME (BIBLE PROPHECY LITERALLY FULFILLED)(BY GOD): KEN FROMM - LINDSEY WILLIAMS - FUTURE OF OIL

    There is much more proof that oil is abiotic. go to startpage.com and put in oil is abiotic
    you can also look at a very interesting article about the bp oil spill here.
    http://rense.com/SILENCING.PDF

    The main point is that we could be energy independent with this oil, and have $1.50 a gallon gas from now on, and start making this economy better. But like in this video of course their not going to do that.They tried to warn us in 1958, back then they said, oh that could never happen this is America.


    And the same day berry soetoro signed the papers that said he would think about closing gitmo in one year, he also signed that the richest clean burning coal deposit in the world that he campaigned we would use to power this nation away as national park or whatever term is was, which is used as collateral to the u.n.

    The info I put out is what I have found, studied carefully and decided to tell others, if you like it fine, if you want to more about it, please take what I have given and expand on it, as far as telling me that everything I say on here is wrong is really annoying, thee are enough gub'ment trolls on these sites trying to discount everything and keep people from waking up, and that is a waste of time for all parties involved. If I put something on here I have generally studied a lot more about than I put on here so I don't have to put a lot of links in and bombard someone with many articles of irrefutable proof and try to narrow it down to make it easier to gain knowledge without having a whole night of research and reading to do to come up with the same conclusion I have. The links that I have put up are only a few that I have on these subjects in the interest of keeping brief and informative.

  6. #6
    Show me some evidence!
    l.f.theria's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mesa Arizona USA
    Posts
    218
    Liked
    74 times
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by INFOMAN View Post
    OH, SO THERE REALLY IS A BIG MAN WITH A BANJO, I WAS WONDERING WHAT THAT REPLY WAS ABOUT.
    Indeed; I am the person with the Stelling Bellflower on the right of the stage.



    Quote Originally Posted by INFOMAN View Post
    If you know more about Lindsey Williams and his appearances on infowars you would know that he was the preacher on the Alaskan pipeline when they were building it, and when they found that light sweet crude (200 years worth) that they told him not to tell anyone, and they tested it and capped it.
    Is that conjecture or do you have some verification of that? Living in Alaska does not automatically make someone an expert on oil, abiotic or not. I can't see why "they" (whomever "they" are) would cap a 200-year supply of oil which would have made "them" and "their" companies bazillions of dollars, do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by INFOMAN View Post
    At the same time the gub'ment made an agreement with the saudi's to buy all nearly all the U.S. needs for oil for 50 years with the agreement that they would buy our T bills to pay America's debt.
    Except that the facts aren't exactly that way. We do get a lot of oil from the Saudis, true; but although we got 34.7 million bbl from them last month, we got almost that much from both Nigeria and Mexico, and almost twice that much (72.7 million bbl) from Canada. If you're interested in futher research on the subject, you might want to check here.

    And as far as buying Treasuries is concerned, all the oil exporters (of which Saudi is just a part) hold US$211.9bn, while the UK alone holds US$272.1bn, Japan holds US$282.3bn, and the PRC holds $1160.1bn (that's ove a trillion US dollars). Again, if you're interested in futher research, this might be a good place to start.


    Quote Originally Posted by INFOMAN View Post
    The info I put out is what I have found, studied carefully and decided to tell others, if you like it fine, if you want to more about it, please take what I have given and expand on it, as far as telling me that everything I say on here is wrong is really annoying...
    I am sorry that you are annoyed by someone disagreeing with your research and conclusions, but as far as I can determine, the founders of this forum set it up for the purpose of reasoned and courteous discussion, not blind acceptance of any assertion or hypothesis that comes down the pike.

    Quote Originally Posted by INFOMAN View Post
    ... thee are enough gub'ment trolls on these sites trying to discount everything and keep people from waking up, and that is a waste of time for all parties involved.
    I hardly think that everyone who disagrees with you is a "troll". I would like to think that, as a fellow researcher, you would welcome additional information that might provide a more accurate picture to help with peoples' "awakening".

    Quote Originally Posted by INFOMAN View Post
    If I put something on here I have generally studied a lot more about than I put on here so I don't have to put a lot of links in and bombard someone with many articles of irrefutable proof and try to narrow it down to make it easier to gain knowledge without having a whole night of research and reading to do to come up with the same conclusion I have. The links that I have put up are only a few that I have on these subjects in the interest of keeping brief and informative.
    Sometimes a coherent approach, well-reasoned conclusions, and some actual links -- especially ones that aren't limited to other conspiracy sites -- will help convince people that you actually know what you're talking about. That's your decision, of course; your readers will believe -- or not believe -- as they choose.
    Last edited by l.f.theria; 06-26-2011 at 12:53 PM.
    A.G.Frog and Carel like this.

  7. #7
    Show me some evidence!
    l.f.theria's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mesa Arizona USA
    Posts
    218
    Liked
    74 times
    Images
    14
    That could be the case; but my point was (and is) that if you're trying to convince someone of a particular thing -- such as the exisetnce and availability of abiotic oil -- you run a good chance of turning them off by bringing in another bunch of suppositions, especially if they're controversial ones.

    Think of it like this: If I want to convince people of the existence of abiotic oil, there might be sixty or seventy of them in a crowd of a hundred who would be amenable to thie idea, but only five or ten who might actually believe in the "controlling everything including the toothbrush" assertion. And as soon as you talk about the "toothbrush" thing, you likely have lost all but the five or ten, and have missed an opportunity to convince the others that what you say is possible about abiotic oil, which was your goal in the first place!
    7redorbs likes this.

  8. #8
    co-founder
    7redorbs's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,205
    Liked
    409 times
    Images
    867
    Well it is pussyfooting around, beacuse the recognition is the academic community frowns hard on any association of religion, or belief on any scientific or supposed 'factual' basis.

    I think its why the intelligent community do so brilliantly in associating the truth with such nutters.

    It works bloody brilliantly! Entire books have been written in the guise of such a process. Why suppress truth when you can get somebody people are biased against to talk about it. That'll put off academic forever, right?

    Poor Wilhelm Reich , Tesla and Dollard. The people that are discredited in such terrible ways, are, discredited in this sort of fashion for one reason and one reason only. They provided equations and a scientific definition. That is why the argument for science or 'fact' was lost , and the means to ridicule by negative association was discovered.

    It doesn't fool the most intelligent among us all, either if it does earn us the arrogance award. Sure, counter-intelligence works in this way, and this is a scientific fact.



    Alex Jones is a wonderful example, he speaks a lot of truth, shame that all the academics run away from both him and the truth he speaks, not because of facts, but because of who he is - and what he believes.

    Like clockwork, I would have no problem fooling people if they are to be this predictable


    Meh *shrugs. I accept that I may be incorrect, always



    Best,
    A

  9. #9
    Show me some evidence!
    l.f.theria's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mesa Arizona USA
    Posts
    218
    Liked
    74 times
    Images
    14
    I don't think it's a matter of "pussyfooting around"; I think it's a matter of staying on message. I've met a lot of people on conspiracy forums who simply can't handle the fact that there are a lot of people who might believe some of their stuff, but not all of it. As a result, they simply won't listen to anyone unless he buys into all of their beliefs.

    If you think that is a better thing to unload all your theories on whomever tou talk with -- even if it doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand -- go for it; but don't be surprised if you get the reputation as a nutter, because doing so could quite likely give you that reputation...

    ... and cause you to fail at your original goal.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Welcome!
CONSPIRACY.CO is a new community that rejects suppression. We permit free, respectful and open communication.

"Be the change that you want to see in the world."
-Mohandas Gandhi

BUY THE BOOK
Sort by Content
Friends




 

TwitterCounter for @Conspiracy_Co

   

your link here..

Support Us!

Choose Amount



World News
Sponsors